Friday, September 08, 2006

Why does anybody give a damn what Sandy Berger thinks? He lost all credibility regarding National Security and 9/11 in particular when he walked out of the 9/11 documents room with confidential papers stuffed in his tightie-whities.

And Madeline Albright? She lost all credibility on National Security when.... well, she never had credibility on national security to begin with, but this was surely the moment when it became clear that she would never have credibility with regards to national security.

And doesn't this picture accurately reflect the Clinton Administration's efforts against Al Qaeda during the '90s?

The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics.

Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.

The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday.

But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated.

Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, says the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history.

He has joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US.

Prof Jones said: "We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone.

"We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this."

In essays and journals, the scientists are giving credence to many of the conspiracy theories that have circulated on the internet in the past five years.

They believe a group of US neo-conservatives called the Project for a New American Century, set on US world dominance, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to hit Iraq, Afghanistan and later Iran.

The group says scientific evidence over the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon is conclusive proof.

Professor Jones said it was impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed in the way they did from the collision of two aeroplanes.

He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claims horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled explosions used to bring down the towers.

The group also maintains World Trade Centre 7 - a neighbouring building which caught fire and collapsed later in the day - was only partially damaged but had to be destroyed because it housed a clandestine CIA station.

Professor James Fetzer, 65, a retired philosopher of science at the University of Minnesota, said: "The evidence is so overwhelming, but most Americans don't have time to take a look at this."

The 9/11 Commission dismissed the numerous conspiracy theories after its exhaustive investigation into the terror attacks.

Subsequent examinations of the towers' structure have sought to prove they were significantly weakened by the impact which tore off fire retardant materials and led the steel beams bending under heat and then collapsing.

Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoake College in Massachusetts, has dismissed the academic group.

He said: "To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It's too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards.

"After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we've had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It's a waste of time."

But University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, said experts are unwilling to believe theories which don't fit into their belief systems.

He said: "People will disregard evidence it if causes their faith to be shattered. I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it."

As the fifth anniversary approached, the 9/11 Scholars for Truth is urging Congress to reopen the investigation claiming they have amassed a wealth of scientific evidence to prove their version of the terror attacks.

Thought I'd provide you with a translation of Bolten's response to this idiocy from Harry Reid & the Dems.

Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf.

President's don't have time to respond to Moonbat Senators.

A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself.

Stop hanging around the Kossacks is one way to straighten yourself out

In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks -- political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won.

Your letter recites four elements of a proposed “new direction” in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided.

Thanks for telling us we're doing the right thing on three elements. On the fourth element, sit & spin.

First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection." That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the past three years. Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army -- and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than a year ago -- and because of the extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations -- which is the most demanding task facing our troops -- tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror.

On Wednesday, we're turning over security of the Al-Anbar province to the Iraqis.... I know this flies in the face of your "reality" that the Iraqi security forces aren't pulling their weight, but - again - you shouldn't be getting your information about Iraq from DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, and your other Moonbat fundraisers.

Second, your letter proposes "working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources." You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members of militias and other illegal armed groups.

Not sure why we have to go over this each time, but you are a putz. Accept it.Third, your letter calls for "convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort." The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way to work with regional and international partners to make substantial economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement in Iraq -- all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it.Choooo Chooo!!! Get on board, beyatch! The train is leaving the station! Oh, and make sure you notice the bolded phrase above - about Iraqi national sovereignty. We're not talking about some UN mission in Iraq that will sit on their duffs for 12 years while they set up sex and drug rings. We're talking about the Iraqis leading this effort.

Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.

Let me spell it out for you.... even when you guys finally agree on something, it's already being implemented by us. And it took you 3 years to come up with this position? Wow.... you guys are lightning quick!

On the fourth element of your proposed “new direction,” however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the “phased redeployment” you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a “quick reaction force” to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).

Ahem.... I would suggest that you tell Murtha to shut his trap, b/c he looks like Porky Pig and makes about as much sense. Sure, he's former military... but so was John Kerry and you see how well that went across with the American people.

Regardless of the specifics you envision by “phased redeployment,” any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for America’s security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This “new direction” would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory -- and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region.

Redeploying is stupid... if you think it's tough to get out right now, imagine how tough it would be to get back in. Of course, you understand this. You just don't want to admit to the American people that you're really seeking a defeat for the Bush Admin (and by extension, the US). Given that Al Qaeda has stated that Iraq is the new front in the war on terror (instead of south Manhattan), why would you want to capitulate?

Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President’s vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President.

Sure, you don't like him... but in tough times, we don't need spineless wimps as Sec of Defense. And as Bush has pointed out shortly after 9/11, the War On Terror isn't about apprehending one man. It's about changing the Middle East so that we can stop Islamic fascism for future generations. It's a long vision, but you've got to get on board with the strategery.

We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror.

Monday, September 04, 2006

We've disclosed and admitted to many of the Rovian Conspiracies since this blog was started, but I thought I'd let my friends on the Left in on the next plot by Mr. Rove to help the chances of the GOP in the House & Senate this fall. No, I'm not talking about more referendums on gay marriage and forcing the Dems to vote for complete capitulation in the face of Islamic fascism. No, you are all well versed enough in all things Rovian to expect those.

No, I'm talking about the gas prices... Two weeks ago gas was at $2.92/gallon in my neighborhood and yesterday evening it was down to $2.39/gallon. Here's an article from Action 2 in Atlanta:

Gas Prices DroppingPOSTED: 6:56 am EDT September 4, 2006

ATLANTA -- Gas prices continued to plummet over the weekend, falling to their lowest levels since April.

The Web site atlantagasprices.com reports the average price in the Atlanta area is $2.56 a gallon.

Some stations are selling gas for as low as $2.39 a gallon.

The drop is a big change from last Labor Day weekend when prices surged to $3.00 a gallon in the days after Hurricane Katrina.

Experts say the decline is related to increased inventory levels, and a summer free of oil refinery prices.

Prices could continue to fall through Thanksgiving.

I really wish Rove wouldn't give the press the actual schedule of when the price drops will occur... I mean, it's better to have low expectations and then beat them, know what I mean?

Anyway, just thought I'd give you guys on the Left a heads-up that we control everything... from the internationl oil conspiracy to the strength and timing of hurricanes in the Gulf.

Uh-oh.... it looks like the DUers are already on the case! Although, the original poster seems to wish for higher gas prices... She seems absolutely ticked that the prices are dropping:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.aspSep-dec 2004 prices were flat - no drop from the end of the supposed "summer driving season". Prices spiked in late August because of Katrina and then slid back down from Oct - December 2005. I cannot remember a supposed reason for the rise from March 2006 to June 2006. The media likes to talk about the supposed "summer driving season" but that is not visible and has not been since I've been tracking gas prices.

My take on this is kinda tinfoil, since I recently got a taxpayer paid brochure from my Republican Representative claiming that Republicans are doing something about high gas prices. Then a week later, prices drop like a rock. How many other Republicans sent the same type of brochure?smaug (60 posts) Fri Sep-01-06 11:51 AMResponse to Reply #2

Price drop is to keep Repuglicans in office; they can point to lowering gas prices as a reason to keep the kleptocracy in complete power, and free of pesky Congressional investigations. I'm telling people, if you vote Repuglican, gas will be $4 a gallon within six months of voting Repug!TriSec (169 posts)Fri Sep-01-06 11:49 AMResponse to Original message

It's labor day weekend...after the kids get back in school, people will start paying attention to the elections. And what hurts the most on a daily basis? Gas prices.

Yep, the sheeple will say, "Gas is down. George Bush Good." That, and an 'October Surprise', and they've stolen another one. And one more step down the road to fascism.catmandu57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Sep-01-06 11:57 AMResponse to Original message

Drop gas prices so that everyone can drive their gashog and forget what it's costs them in the past couple of years.IChing Donating Member (1000+ posts)Fri Sep-01-06 12:02 PMResponse to Original message

an "election" is coming. the diebold/es&s machines require that the "poll" ratings are within 10% or so for the surprise GOP "upset" to be plausible. look for other good transient developments on the home front.

Well, while these enlightened individuals are already aware of the Rovian machinations behind the scenes, at least they won't be able to get the word out to the electorate thanks to the corporatist media (which is under our control as well).

Have a Happy Labor Day! And remember, the reason we have it on this day is because we didn't want to have a Commie Celebration on May 1st which would commemorate the Haymarket Riots. Oh, and also because the Klanners (Bobby Byrd's ancestors) preferred the September celebration!